Few foregone conclusions: Important to take application process seriously
This Should Be A Slam Dunk
More often than not, the applicants for an area variance just do not take their request serious—they just assume that they will get want they want. Whether it’s a shed, garage or an addition too close to a side line or too close to the road, what’s the big deal; we see them all over the town.
We will just fill out the form, pay the fee and go to the meeting. They don’t really care about my little garage anyway. When the Board of Appeals renders a denial, the applicant is surprised, sometimes angry.
Then, of course, the applicant assumes for whatever reason the board just didn’t like them in the first place and that’s why the application was denied.
Could it have been that the first thing the board considers when passing judgment on any area variance is whether there were any possible alternatives that would not require a variance, or at least substantially reduce the amount of relief requested? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the request is simply out of character with the neighborhood, and would stick out like a sore thumb?
When an application for a variance is picked up here in the Code Office, every effort is made to go over the application with the property owner, or their representative.
The last page of the application is an actual copy of the five primary questions the Board of Appeals uses to help them make a decision.
It is suggested that the applicant understand these five questions thoroughly, and attach a cover letter that addresses each of the five questions.
That helps the applicant to think like a Board member.
Trying to get the applicant to think like a board member, and understand what the board’s legal responsibility is, is difficult.
The Board of Appeals will not be approving anything just because someone asks.
The Board of Appeals is charged with making a rational determination that before approving [or denying] the application, the “Balancing Test” has been applied and satisfied.
It has nothing to do with who you are, or how simple the request seems to be.
If there is a place to put the proposed shed or garage where a variance would not be required, the variance should be denied, not approved.
This is not some silly local law, this is, or should be, the standard applied by any Zoning Board of Appeals in the State.
The first two of the five questions in the Balancing test are; 1] Whether the benefit to the applicant can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant… in other words, are there other alternatives available to the applicant? And; 2] Will there be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? The other three questions are; 3] Whether the request is substantial. And; 4] Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental impacts. And; 5] Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created.
Taking these five points seriously cannot be under estimated.
This is the way the Board of Appeals weighs the Balancing Test. However, all too often the applicants just simply ignore them.
Because the applicant was not properly prepared and able to show the Board why they had no other feasible alternatives, or why their request is not out of character with the neighborhood, or how they can overcome potential environments problems, or why they think the request is not substantial, the application is usually denied.
Who really ever reads those silly instructions anyway? Knowledge and understanding, powerful tools.
